Smt. Anjali Patidar vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 735 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 523/2023

Smt. Anjali Patidar W/o Shri Ashok Patidar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Post - Bhemai, Tehsil - Galia Kot, District -K Dungarpur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Project Director, Rajasthan Aids Control Society, Secretariat Medical And Health Services Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Chief Medical Officer And Member Secretary, Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Government General Hospital, Dungarpur (Rajasthan).

3. Officer Incharge, Blood Bank, Government General Hospital, Durgarpur (Rajasthan).

4. The Sherya House Keeping Service, Office - G-314, Vivek Nagar, Near Ascent Coaching, Hiran Magri, Sector - 3, Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra
For Respondent(s)          :    -



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

19/01/2023

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 14.12.2022, whereby her engagement

as Blood Bank Counselor has been brought to an end.

2. The facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner was

engaged as Blood Bank Counselor on 30.07.2020 and a contract in

furtherance thereof was executed.

(2 of 4) [CW-523/2023]

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been expelled per

viam the impugned order dated 14.12.2022, passed by

respondent No.4, simply on the allegation that she has defied the

orders of the higher authorities.

4. Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner

argued that the respondent No.4 - the placement agency is

discharging public function and thus, writ can be issued to it.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of

Rajbir Surajbhan Singh Vs. Chairman, Institute of Banking

Personnel Selection, Mumbai AIR Online 2019 SC 252, particularly

para No.9 and 12 thereof.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

7. Though the petitioner has neither placed on record the order

of engagement nor the terms and conditions of the service

agreement but on the basis of pleadings it is clear that the

petitioner is simply a person engaged through placement agency

and there is no employer - employee relationship or direct nexus

between the petitioner and the State.

8. So far as respondent No.4 is concerned, it is only a

contractor or placement agency, which engages various persons

including the petitioner, as per the requirement of the State and

deploys them.

9. Petitioner's engagement and terms and conditions thereof

are governed by a bipartite contract between petitioner and the

respondent No.4 and the State has no direct or pervasive control

over it. Merely because the funds or petitioner's salary is being

(3 of 4) [CW-523/2023]

provided or paid by the State Government, the respondent No.4

cannot be said to be an instrumentality of the State.

10. The judgment in the case of Rajbir Surajbhan Singh (supra)

relied upon by Mr. Bohra is entirely distinguishable on facts;

because in the said case, the agency ICRISAT was discharging

duties or functions which were akin to sovereign functions,

whereas the respondent No.4 herein is not more than a contractor

or placement agency, which is providing manpower. The function

of providing manpower cannot be treated to be a sovereign

function. Hence, neither the respondent No.4 can be said to be an

instrumentality of the State, nor can a writ be issued to it.

11. So far as the impugned communication dated 14.12.2022 is

concerned, a perusal of the same reveals that the petitioner has

been found guilty of reporting late in the office and has been

found defying the orders of the higher authorities. If such a

person is kept in service, even through placement agency, the

same would break the discipline and put the whole administration

of the hospital to ransom.

12. This Court is not much convinced with the argument of Mr.

Bohra that the language used in the impugned communication

dated 14.12.2022 will affect petitioner's future prospects of

getting employment. The reason is - the petitioner can neither be

said to be in public employment nor can the communication dated

14.12.2022 be termed as an order of termination.

13. The order impugned is simply an order bringing end to

petitioner's engagement, that too by the respondent No.4 - the

placement agency.

14. As an upshot of the discussion foregoing, the writ petition is

dismissed.

(4 of 4) [CW-523/2023]

15. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 6-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)